Abstract
The focus of this paper is on the implications of key findings and theoretical positions from social psychology and cognitive developmental psychology (Piagetian/neo-Piagetian) for the use of IT tools to support learning in algebra. Particular reference is made to the research of the UK Cognitive Acceleration through Mathematics Education (CAME) project. The feasibility of the CAME model in the exploration of mathematical relationships supported by graphics calculators was addressed in a small-scale study in Hong Kong. The research provides evidence that, with appropriate mediation, cognitive conflict can be utilised to provide valuable appropriate for students to engage in increasingly higher levels of mathematical thinking.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1994).Really raising standards. London, England: Routledge.
Adhami, M., Johnson, D., & Shayer, M. (1998a). Does CAME work? Summary report on phase 2 of the Cognitive Acceleration in Mathematics Education, CAME, project. InProceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics Day Conference, Bristol, 15 November 1997 (pp. 26–31). London, England: BSRLM.
Adhami, M., Johnson, D., & Shayer, M. (1998b).Thinking Maths: The Program for Accelerated Learning in Mathematics. Oxford, England: Heinemann.
Adhami, M., Johnson, D. C., & Shayer, M. (1998c). Cognitive development and classroom interaction: A theoretical foundation for teaching and learning. In J. D. Tinsley and D. C. Johnson (Eds.),Secondary school mathematics in the 7.oorld of communication technologies (pp. 205–213). London, England: Chapman & Hall.
Balacheff, N., & Kaput, J. J. (1996). Computer-based learning environments in mathematics. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.),International handbook of mathematics education ( Part I, pp. 469–501). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Booth, L. (1984).Algebra: Children’s strategies and errors. Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(5), 32–42.
Brown, M. (Ed.). (1992).Graded Assessment in Mathematics (GAIM) topic criteria handbook. Walton-on Thames, England: Nelson.
Burton, L., & Jaworski, B. (Eds.). (1995).Technology in mathematics teaching: A bridge between teaching and learning. Bromley, England: Chartwell-Bratt.
Cobb, P. (Ed.). (1994).Learning mathematics: Constructivist and interactionist theories of mathematical development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective discourse and collective reflection.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 258–277.
Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the graphing calculator.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 143–163.
Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1987). On the deep structure of functions. In J. Bergeron, N. Herscovics, & C. Kieran (Eds.),Proceedings of the 11th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 190–196). Montreal, Canada: Program Committee.
Dugdale, S. (1993). Functions and graphs: Perspectives on student thinking. In T. Romberg, E. Fennema and T. Carpenter (Eds.),Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 101–130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Filloy, E., & Sutherland, R. (1996). Designing curricula for teaching and learning algebra. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.),International handbook of mathematics education (Part I, pp.139–160). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Goldenberg, E. P. (1988). Mathematics, metaphors, and human factors: Mathematical, technical, and pedagogical challenges in the educational use of graphical representation of functions.Journal ofMathematical Behavior, 7, 135–173.
Hart, K. (1984).Ratio: Children’s strategies and errors. Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON.
Hart, K. (Ed.). (1981).Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16. London, England: John Murray.
Herscovics, N. (1989). Cognitive obstacles encountered in the learning of algebra. In S. Wagner and C. Kieran (Eds.),Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 60–86). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Johnson, D. C. (1992). Algorithmics in school mathematics: Why, what and how? In I. Wirszup and R. Streit (Eds.),Developments in school mathematics education around the world (pp. 330–345). Reston, VA: National Council of Teacher of Mathematics.
Johnson, D. C. (1995). Information technology: The virtual reality of the school mathematics classroom. InProceedings of the 1st Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (pp. 9–21). Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Johnson, D. C. (Ed.). (1989).Children’s mathematical frameworks 8–13: A study of classroom teaching. Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON.
Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kerslake, D. (1986).Fractions: Children’s strategies and errors. Windsor, England: NFERNELSON.
Kieren, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390–419). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kieren, T. E. (1998). Towards an embodied view of the mathematics curriculum in a world of technology. In D. Tinsley & D. Johnson (Eds.),Secondary school mathematics in the world of communication technologies (pp. 19–28). London, England: Chapman & Hall.
Küchemann, D. E. (1981). Algebra. In K. Hart (Ed.),Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16 (pp. 102–119). London, England: John Murray.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching.American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.
Mok, I. A. C, Johnson, D. C., Cheung, J. Y. H., & Lee, A. M. S. (2000). Introducing technology in algebra in Hong Kong: Addressing issues in learning.International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31, 553–567.
Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. Romberg, E. Fennema and T. Carpenter (Eds.),Integrating research on the graphical representation offunctions (pp. 69–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Piaget, J. (1962).Comments on Vygotsky’s critical remarks concerning “The language and thought of the child” and “Judgement and reasoning in the child”. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Romberg, T. A., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. P. (Eds.) (1993).Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ruthven, K. (1990). The influence of graphic calculator use on translation from graphic to symbolic forms.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 431–450.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1990). GRAPHER: A case study in educational technology, research, and development. In A. diSessa, M. Gardner, J. Greeno, R. Reif, A. H. Schoenfeld, & E. Stage (Eds.),Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 281–300). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 4 (pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwartz, J. L., Yerushauny, M., & Education Development Center. (1988).Visualizing algebra: The function analyzer [Computer software and teachers’ guide]. Pleasantville, NY: Sunburst Communications.
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981).Towards a science of science teaching. London, England: Heinemann.
Smith, E. (1999). Social constructivism, individual constructivism and the role of computers in mathematics education.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 411–425.
Sutherland, R. (1989). Providing a computer based framework for algebraic thinking.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 317–344.
Sutherland, R. (1995). Algebraic thinking: The role of the computer. In L. Burton & B. Jaworski (Eds.),Technology in mathematics teaching: A bridge between teaching and learning (pp. 275–287). Bromley, England: Chartwell-Bratt.
Tall, D. O. (1989). Different cognitive obstacles in a technological paradigm. In S. Wagner and C. Kieran (Eds.),Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 87–92). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Tall, D. O., Thomas, M. O. J., Davis, G., Gray, E., & Simpson, A. (1999). What is the object of the encapsulation of a process?Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 223–241.
Tinsley, D., & Johnson, D. C. (Eds.). (1998).Secondary school mathematics in the world of communication technologies. London, England: Chapman & Hall.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yerushalmy, M., & Schwartz, J. L. (1993). Seizing the opportunity to make algebra mathematically and pedagogically interesting. In T. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. Carpenter (Eds.),Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 41–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mok, I., Johnson, D. Reasoning algebraically with IT: A cognitive perspective. Math Ed Res J 12, 286–302 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217090
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217090